Peripheral and behavioral plasticity of pheromone response and its hormonal control in a long-lived moth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproductive success in many animals depends on the efficient production of and response to sexual signals. In insects, plasticity in sexual communication is predicted in species that experience periods of reproductive inactivity when environmental conditions are unsuitable for reproduction. Here, we study a long-lived moth Caloptilia fraxinella (Ely) (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) that is reproductively inactive from eclosion in summer until the following spring. Male sex pheromone responsiveness is plastic and corresponds with female receptivity. Pheromone response plasticity has not been studied in a moth with an extended period of reproductive inactivity. In this study, we ask whether male antennal response and flight behavior are plastic during different stages of reproductive inactivity and whether these responses are regulated by juvenile hormone. Antennal response to the pheromone blend is significantly reduced in reproductively inactive males tested in the summer and autumn as compared with reproductively active males tested in the spring. Reproductively inactive autumn but not summer males show lower antennal responses to individual pheromone components compared with spring males. Treatment with methoprene enhances antennal response of autumn but not summer males to high doses of the pheromone blend. Behavioral response is induced by methoprene treatment in males treated in the autumn but not in the summer. Plasticity of pheromone response in C. fraxinella is regulated, at least in part, by the peripheral nervous system. Antennal and behavioral response to pheromone differed in reproductively active and inactive males and increased with methoprene treatment of inactive males.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".